here fishy fishy

“The PMO (Prime Minister’s Office) is currently studying how we can better engage overseas Singaporeans, in particular recruiting the young overseas students back to Singapore, and is seeking feedback from the students on how the government could facilitate that.”

Apparently there was another similar session held a few weeks ago, where some students gave their reasons for not wanting wholeheartedly to return to Singapore after graduation. And in typical talking-down style, the speaker defended all the policies that the students had questioned, and even implied that they were unpatriotic/dishonourable/rude (I’m not really sure what he said, exactly, because I know about it through hearsay, but I know it was something not very nice).

So, I got to thinking.

Why, indeed, is there reluctance for Singaporean students to return to those sunny shores of our garden-island-state? And why do I not witness the same reluctance in any of my classmates that hail from Hong Kong – arguably comparable in terms of size, economy and social demographic?

Personally, I think that returning to Singapore will reduce the chances of any student who has harboured thoughts of an international career to actually embark on it.

There is the comfort (false, it may be) of being ‘at home’ and thus stifling the desire to remove oneself from a place where mummy is just 20mins away. Also, even if one still manages to retain one’s international aspirations, unless one has held a job in an MNC or even a regional company, there is little scope of advancement coming from a wholly Singapore-owned company unless one is truly and remarkably exceptional. Further, the dynamism and get-up-and-go-get-‘em attitude and spirit is just something I don’t see in Singapore, unless you’re talking about the top levels of MNCs, which will be impossible to get a job at without first having had international experience somewhere else, thus perpetuating the problem above.

As discussed with Jem, while I was desperately filling out application forms for training contracts with firms in London and he was twiddling his thumbs waiting for calls to interviews, would you rather be a big fish in a small pond, or a medium sized fish in a big pond?

I think most people concentrate on the size of the fish, but forget about the size of the pond. A small pond can only sustain that much of an ecosystem, and is highly susceptible to external shock. A big pond has a larger, more self-sustainable ecosystem, greater variety of species, and is much better placed to adapt to new situations imposed by external sources.

And anyway, if you’re already a big fish, there’s no impetus to improve oneself or get bigger, meaner and stronger. At least in a big pond, there’s challenge and there’s competition and there’s intellectual stimulation.

Like I told several of my interviewers, I want to work internationally and it’s a lot easier to work in international offices having started out in London than in Singapore. One just cannot deny the fact that certain cities have better and more attractive prospects than others in terms of getting to the top-end of a not-so-level playing field.

Another reason might be society. Perhaps after being exposed to the free and liberal-mindedness of mainstream society and the press, Singapore seems claustrophobic and smothering. This would explain the difference in attitude between the students from Hong Kong and those from Singapore. Civil society in Hong Kong is much more developed there than in Singapore despite, and in spite of, the fact that they are a Chinese territory.

Or it might just simply be down to a matter of money. I can only do a comparison between lawyers, but I will assume that the information can be extrapolated into other fields. For a lawyer who qualified in 2001, average yearly pay would be £42,500 - £53,000 in London, £60,000 - £72,500 in Hong Kong, and £26,500 - £50,000 in Singapore (source here). Even after taking into account the cost of living, Singapore still doesn’t seem to provide the best remuneration, especially since many firms in London provide perks like you’d never believe, e.g. free use of on-site gymnasium with swimming pools, in-house café/restaurants, season passes to football, theatre or opera, etc.

So, what can the Permanent Secretary of the PMO do to convince people like me to return?

Nothing, really.

Anecdotal evidence amongst fellow schoolmates who have gotten jobs in London has shown that nothing much can be done to convince them to return immediately after graduation. It’s not selfish or unpatriotic to think that if one can begin a career in London, one should embrace it and make the most of one’s opportunity. In fact, I think one ought to be suspicious of anyone who is overeager to return to Singapore and who has been scornful of others’ attempts at securing a job in London after graduation, but perhaps I am not giving enough weight to the ties of family and girl/boyfriends.

Nevertheless, I think the question posed focuses on the wrong group of people. What good can fresh graduates do in a system where heirarchy, seniority and bureacracy reigns? Whatever fresh ideas and new thoughts that we might introduce will merely be dismissed as being the 'idealistic wishful thinking of a young upstart'. So, unless that changes and the views of young people are regarded as equally important and useful, both of which are highly unlikely, then perhaps it should not be us that the government should be seeking to attract.

Perhaps the more important question ought to be, after establishing careers and proving ourselves to be good at what we do, what can be done to convince us then to return to Singapore? Or, what can be done to convince already-established professionals with international experience to return to Singapore?

But until then, it seems there is not much magnetism emanating from Singapore when scholarship students find as many ways as possible to delay their return, as evidenced by a surge of Master’s students present in and around the country, and when scholars quit the public sector soon after they have finished their bond in search of greener pastures elsewhere.